Juwan Matthews v. Kevin Pitzen

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 20, 2024*
Decided November 21, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1358
JUWAN MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KEVIN PITZEN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 22-cv-00481-wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
O R D E R
Juwan Matthews, a Wisconsin prisoner, sued prison guards for violating his
Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights when they subjected him to two strip searches.
The district court ruled that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-1358 Page 2
entered summary judgment in favor of the guards. We agree with the court’s
conclusion and affirm.
The searches at issue occurred on May 1 and June 28, 2019, while Matthews was
incarcerated at Columbia Correctional Institution. In the May search, two guards
participated, while a third observed. The guards, suspecting that Matthews had a cell
phone, handcuffed him, patted him down, and then forcibly removed his clothes and
searched his body. They did not find a phone. The June search unfolded similarly, albeit
with different guards.
Regarding the May search, Matthews submitted an inmate complaint that was
promptly returned because he did not first attempt to resolve his dispute informally, as
departmental regulations required. Matthews was informed that he would have one
opportunity to comply with the rules. Matthews in fact had tried the previous day to
resolve the dispute informally by contacting the prison’s security director and warden.
He filed a second complaint indicating as much, and a complaint examiner
acknowledged receipt. Despite regulatory provisions stating that the examiner “shall
either reject the complaint or send a recommendation” within 30 days of receipt, WIS .
A DMIN . C ODE § DOC 310.10(9), the examiner took more than two months to respond.
The examiner recommended that Matthews’s complaint be dismissed because he had
not provided evidence of his attempt to informally resolve the dispute. (The complaint
form instructs complainants to “Send any documentation you have, that supports your
attempt to resolve your claims.”) The examiner added that the security director had
reported receiving no correspondence from Matthews. The warden agreed with the
examiner’s recommendation and dismissed Matthews’s complaint.
Matthews timely appealed the warden’s decision to the corrections complaint
examiner, who agreed with the previous examiner and recommended that the appeal
be dismissed. The reviewing authority accepted the recommendation and dismissed
Matthews’s appeal.
Matthews did not submit a complaint regarding the June search.
Matthews then sued, but the defendants promptly moved for summary
judgment based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Matthews conceded
that he had not attached supporting documentation to his complaint form but argued
that the delays in processing his complaint had rendered the administrative process
unavailable to him. The district court disagreed and entered summary judgment for the

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-1358 Page 3
defendants, concluding that the delays did not relieve Matthews of his obligation to
follow the prison’s rules for filing grievances.
We review de novo the grant of summary judgment for failure to exhaust. Gooch
v. Young, 24 F.4th 624, 626 (7th Cir. 2022). The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that
a prisoner exhaust all available administrative remedies before suing prison officials.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). To satisfy this requirement, a prisoner must strictly comply with
prison grievance procedures, as defined by state law. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204, 218
(2007); Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016, 1025 (7th Cir. 2019).
On appeal, Matthews reprises his argument regarding the first search that the
delays in processing his complaint rendered the grievance process unavailable to him.
But as the district court rightly explained, any processing delays do not relieve a
prisoner of the obligation to exhaust. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638–39 (2016). By
failing to attach the supporting documentation required on the complaint form,
Matthews did not give the prison a “fair opportunity” to correct the problem.
See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93–94 (2006). Insofar as Matthews suggests that the
prison’s delay rendered the administrative process unavailable, he overlooks his
obligations under the administrative rules. Once he did not receive a decision on his
complaint within 45 days, Wisconsin regulations permitted him to appeal to the
corrections complaint examiner. See WIS . A DMIN . C ODE §§ DOC 310.11(3), 310.12(2). The
grievance process thus remained “capable of use.” Wallace v. Baldwin, 55 F.4th 535, 542
(7th Cir. 2022) (citing Ross, 578 U.S. at 642).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --